Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add maragudk/skills --skill address-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/maragudk/skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/maragudk/skills/address-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/maragudk/skills/address-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/maragudk/skills/address-code-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/maragudk/skills/address-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/maragudk/skills/address-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00084 | $0.00593 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00237 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
address-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address Code Review
Work through code review comments with the user, one comment at a time. Never present multiple comments at once.
Input sources
Comments may come from:
- GitHub PR - Fetch inline and general comments using
gh api - Document in the repo - Parse whatever markdown structure is found
- Conversation - Comments given directly by the user
Process
1. Collect feedback
- GitHub PR: Use GraphQL to fetch all comments in one go. Fetch inline review comments via
pullRequest.reviewThreadsand general PR comments viapullRequest.comments. Skip already-resolved threads (isResolved). Still present outdated but unresolved comments (isOutdated), noting to the user that the code has changed since the comment was left. - Document: Read the file and extract review items.
- Conversation: Use the comments as provided.
2. Triage one at a time
For each comment, strictly one at a time:
- Present the comment to the user.
- Share your own assessment: agree, disagree, or propose an alternative. Explain your reasoning briefly.
- Wait for the user to decide what to do (apply, skip, modify, etc.).
- Record the agreed-upon action. Do not apply code changes yet.
For GitHub PR inline comments: immediately reply to the comment on GitHub and resolve the thread after discussion.
3. Apply changes
After all comments have been discussed, apply all agreed-upon code changes in one batch.
For GitHub PR general comments (which may contain multiple issues in one comment): post a single summary reply after all issues in that comment are addressed.
For document sources: update the document with status/progress as appropriate.
GitHub CLI reference
| Action | Command |
|---|---|
| Fetch all comments | GraphQL query on pullRequest.reviewThreads (inline) and pullRequest.comments (general) |
| Reply to inline comment | gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies -X POST -f body="..." |
| Reply to general comment | gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr}/comments -X POST -f body="..." |
| Resolve a thread | GraphQL mutation resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "..."}) |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A f31b550823d4
address-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository maragudk/skills (49 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 593 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…